Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Kapahi Real Estate Inc. on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc.

Court
Ontario SCJ
Jurisdiction
Canada
Decided
2026-03-10
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Bar Referral
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 44 of the Reply Factum purports to quote BH Frontier Solutions Inc. v. 11054660 Canada Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up. || False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 52 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celestica Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up (and misattributes authorship). || False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 58 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Pita Royale Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up. || False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 79 of the Reply Factum again purports to quote Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celestica Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up (and misattributes the author). || False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 36 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up. || False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 41 of the Reply Factum purports to quote FNF Enterprises Inc. v. Wag and Train Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up. || False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 43 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Pita Royale Inc. v. Buckingham Properties Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up.

Sanction teardown · Ontario SCJ, Canada · 2026-03-10

Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc.

What happened

In Ontario SCJ, Canada, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Paragraph 44 of the Reply Factum purports to quote BH Frontier Solutions Inc. v. 11054660 Canada Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Paragraph 52 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celestica Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up (and misattributes authorship).
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Paragraph 58 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Pita Royale Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Paragraph 79 of the Reply Factum again purports to quote Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celestica Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up (and misattributes the author).
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Paragraph 36 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Paragraph 41 of the Reply Factum purports to quote FNF Enterprises Inc. v. Wag and Train Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Paragraph 43 of the Reply Factum purports to quote Pita Royale Inc. v. Buckingham Properties Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Bar Referral

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1642/2026onsc1438.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1642/2026onsc1438.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template